KAGAWONG—Although councillors deemed it “heavy handed” and raised concerns that an expected behaviour policy, as proposed, could cut off members of the public from providing input and having questions answered by the municipality, the policy was passed by Billings township council. Billings is the second municipality on Manitoulin to enact a similar code of conduct. Central Manitoulin passed one previously.
“This bylaw may seem heavy handed,” said Mayor Bryan Barker at a council meeting last week. “However, the township has been forced into taking action to protect our staff, council and residents from unreasonable frivolous and/or vexatious actions.”
The bylaw is not meant to be used when dealing with difficult requests or public complaints, Mayor Barker pointed out. “The purpose of this policy is to deal with situations of unreasonable behaviour which causes concern for staff’s personal safety, causes an uncomfortable workplace and places strain on resources, which has an adverse effect on the day-to-day operation of the township.”
Council had deferred the bylaw at its May 2 meeting to allow Councillor Vince Grogan the opportunity to be involved in discussions. “I think it is proper to have this type of procedure in place,” Councillor Grogan said.
Councillor Dave Hillyard noted there is already a code of conduct in place for council members themselves. He called the expected behaviour policy “heavy handed” but fully supported the bylaw.
Councillors Michael Hunt and Jim Cahill were also in support of the bylaw, although Councillor Cahill agreed it was heavy handed. “It says many municipalities have similar code of conduct bylaws,” he said. “I don’t know if we have a list. Because this policy probably restricts individuals who won’t be able to ask questions or receive information, we have to be careful when we put this in place. We need this, absolutely.”
Mayor Barker provided an example of where the policy may be used. “Since March 2023 until the present, Billings Township has received over 115 emails from an individual member of our township, as well as numerous telephone calls to staff and councillors (from the same person). This individual attended at the township office and insisted on taking cell phone video of staff and on a separate occasion took video of the staff’s vehicles. This behaviour caused staff to feel uncomfortable, intimidated and stressed, which greatly impacts staff’s ability to get work done.”
Staff now feel unsafe in the workplace and the township has had to rearrange work schedules to ensure staff safety, he added. Public works has had to install a counter barrier to separate the common area from the office area, said Mayor Barker.
“Given the impact that his behaviour had on staff, the township felt it necessary to file a report with the Ontario Provincial Police,” said Mayor Barker.
He told council he sent the individual a registered letter requesting that any emails for information or action be sent to the township CAO. “The reply to the registered letter was, ‘My reply to your request is a resounding no.’”
The same request was also made of the individual, verbally and through email, by staff and other council members, and has been ignored. The individual has also filed written complaints against staff and council members.
The expected behaviour policy was recommended by the township’s integrity commissioner and was prepared by a lawyer. “Our township lawyer has also reviewed the policy and supports its implementation as written,” added Mayor Barker. “This policy or other variations have been adopted by numerous municipalities throughout the province. This policy should not, and will not, be taken lightly. As a council, I feel we owe it to our staff to protect them and ensure they feel comfortable and safe in the workplace. We also owe it to our constituents to ensure that their tax dollars are spent efficiently and responsibly, not wasted on frivolous and vexatious requests that consume an inordinate amount of staff’s time. As mayor, I support this policy as written.”
The policy contains examples of unreasonable behaviours and vexatious or frivolous requests, as well as responses, responsibilities and actions to be taken. Information provided by township staff and supervisors will be reviewed by the CAO/Clerk in consultation with the mayor to determine if the behaviour warrants the application of restriction, with each case to be considered on an individual basis. The individual will be notified of the outcome by letter and has the ability to appeal any decision by contacting the CAO/clerk, who will review all relevant information. The CAO/clerk’s decision is final; however, if this does not resolve the issue, the individual may submit a complaint to the office of the Ontario Ombudsman.
One example of vexatious or frivolous requests is the submission of obsessive requests with a very high volume and frequency of correspondence, or mingling requests with accusations and complaints. Under the expected behaviour policy, the decision to classify someone’s behaviour as unreasonable, or to classify a request or complaint as frivolous or vexatious, could have serious consequences for the individual, including restricting his or her access to township services and staff.
Councillor Cahill said the CAO/clerk should consult with council as well as the mayor, in order to determine if the behaviour contravenes the policy. “Obviously, council wants to support and protect staff,” he said. “But the Municipal Act requires transparency and accountability. I would just like the amendment to be considered.”
The motion by Councillor Cahill to amend the policy was not seconded. He requested a recorded vote. Councillors Grogan, Hunt and Hillyard as well as Mayor Barker voted in favour of the bylaw as recommended. Councillor Cahill was opposed.
